OFCOM ready to rule?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Morden

But all BT's investment in broaddand was as a private company and there are other examples of markets being investigated e.g. supermarkets, banks where accusations of monolopolys or price fixing were made.

You missed the important part of my quote:

given a natural monopoly at the time of privatisation

It wasn't about who paid for what, it is that they are a natural monopoly that is extremely difficult and expensive to duplicate with private money.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by beeman

But the government didnt give BT away they SOLD it to the stock market. They SOLD the exchanges, the copper, the telegraph poles, the monopoly etc. So the fact that the network was build with public funds carrys no weight in the argument as the public have been reimbersed for that investment.

What it was sold for was not what it would have cost to replicate, or cost to even build in the first place. No one would have paid that, and if it was left to a private business to build a competing network they would NEVER give it the coverage BT's has, they'd cherry pick the most profitable areas (just look at VM's coverage).

That is why it was opened up, not because it was specifically built with public money, but because without public money a huge amount of it would never have been built as it would never have been profitable. It is the network that makes BT a monopoly. They are the only company that has, or will ever have, a network that reaches 99.99% of the population, and they only have that because it was built with public money.

[beeman]

Originally Posted by TheDon

What it was sold for was not what it would have cost to replicate, or cost to even build in the first place. No one would have paid that, and if it was left to a private business to build a competing network they would NEVER give it the coverage BT's has, they'd cherry pick the most profitable areas (just look at VM's coverage).

That is why it was opened up, not because it was specifically built with public money, but because without public money a huge amount of it would never have been built as it would never have been profitable. It is the network that makes BT a monopoly. They are the only company that has, or will ever have, a network that reaches 99.99% of the population, and they only have that because it was built with public money.

What your talking about is sellers regret, something that cannot bee used as an excuse for tighter legislation, as it would make life very difficalt for the government should they need to engange the city again (remember the railtrack disaster) and would proberlly bee illegal.

Alough there main bee some element of sellers regret in the regulation of BT's monopoly. for the most part its purely about preventing a company abusing its monopoly. Something that is very common (we even have a specific government department with very wide reaching powers to prevent private company's abusing its donamint market position (the competition (commission (formally the less powerful monopoly's and mergers commission)).

Also remember as i said before the majority of skys network infructure was also build with public funds (astra).

[Morden]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

You missed the important part of my quote:
It wasn't about who paid for what, it is that they are a natural monopoly that is extremely difficult and expensive to duplicate with private money.

I dont think that you get my argument on this either, never mind you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

There is no point in having a point of view, a reminder to myself on why I rarely visit this forum. Oh well back in another 6 months and see if anythings changed bye bye.

[Flyboy]

I have often wondered about this "selling" of BT to the public. How could the public actually buy something that they already owned? The company was "sold" off, along with every other valuable asset, at a very cheap price, to pay for the economic disasters of the then government.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have often wondered about this "selling" of BT to the public. How could the public actually buy something that they already owned? The company was "sold" off, along with every other valuable asset, at a very cheap price, to pay for the economic disasters of the then government.

Yup; and made a lot of wealthy people wealthier.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by beeman

What your talking about is sellers regret, something that cannot bee used as an excuse for tighter legislation, as it would make life very difficalt for the government should they need to engange the city again (remember the railtrack disaster) and would proberlly bee illegal.

Alough there main bee some element of sellers regret in the regulation of BT's monopoly. for the most part its purely about preventing a company abusing its monopoly. Something that is very common (we even have a specific government department with very wide reaching powers to prevent private company's abusing its donamint market position (the competition (commission (formally the less powerful monopoly's and mergers commission)).

Also remember as i said before the majority of skys network infructure was also build with public funds (astra).

It's nothing to do with sellers regret at all.

When people say it's because it was paid for with public funds what they actually mean is that no corporation would ever put that level of investment into it because they'd never see a return, and so the only reason it exists is because it was publicly funded.

It's making the point that it's not possible to launch a network to compete with it, and the reason that's not possible is because it's not financially viable to do so. No one can come in to the telephone market and go "you know what, I'm going to build a telephone network that rivals BTs" they'd go bankrupt before they started.

The reason BT was a monopoly was not just because it was the only company offering a high level of coverage, but it was the only company that COULD, and the only reason it could, was because, you guessed it, it's network was built with public money.

Sky is entirely different because it IS economical to launch a satellite system to compete with it, or rent access off any of the existing ones.

It's not just the fact public money was used, but the fact that without it it'd never have happened.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have often wondered about this "selling" of BT to the public. How could the public actually buy something that they already owned? The company was "sold" off, along with every other valuable asset, at a very cheap price, to pay for the economic disasters of the then government.

I suppose we shouldn't mention the privatisation of NATS (Air Traffic Control), and that of Qinetiq, carried out by Labour?

How are the 640 PFI initiatives, worth £209 billion, launched under the Labour Government, coming along?

How is the London Underground PPPs (Public Private Partnerships) coming along? (oh, they're not doing very well, are they?)

Do you think "Mandy" will privatise Royal Mail?

All these, and many more questions, will not be answered by "Clause 4".

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I suppose we shouldn't mention the privatisation of NATS (Air Traffic Control), and that of Qinetiq, carried out by Labour?

How are the 640 PFI initiatives, worth £209 billion, launched under the Labour Government, coming along?

How is the London Underground PPPs (Public Private Partnerships) coming along? (oh, they're not doing very well, are they?)

Do you think "Mandy" will privatise Royal Mail?

All these, and many more questions, will not be answered by "Clause 4".

But that is nowhere near as devastating as the wholesale privatisations carried out by the Tory government during their tenure.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But that is nowhere near as devastating as the wholesale privatisations carried out by the Tory government during their tenure.

And privatisation at a massivley discounted price....

Let's try not to wander too far from the topic please people.

[calmpitbull]

It seems to me that nowadays everything has to be wholesaled or offered to everyone. (I get my gas from my electric company and my electric from my gas company!!!).

I can see both sides of the argument but it either has to be one way or the other. Total regulation and one rule for everybody or a completely free market.

I would hate to have spent a lot of time, money and effort developing pay TV channels such as sky sports only to have somebody tell me that I have to let someone else sell it to their customers for the sole reason that my labour and effort is too successful!!. In fact I would be inclined to not bother developing anything else again and just buy in other peoples channels to offer to my customers! What is wrong with sky having a competitive edge if they have made the effort and investment.

If sky are made to do this, just as BT offer their products as wholesale or LLU, then VM should also be made to offer a wholesale product on their network. Then everything is open for everybody. (things could get quite confusing!)

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Morden

I dont think that you get my argument on this either, never mind you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

There is no point in having a point of view, a reminder to myself on why I rarely visit this forum. Oh well back in another 6 months and see if anythings changed bye bye.

Do you often throw the toys just because someone disagrees with you? Probably not wise to visit discussion forums if that is the case to be perfectly honest.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

Originally Posted by calmpitbull

It seems to me that nowadays everything has to be wholesaled or offered to everyone.

In infrastructure based markets or markets where a player dominates agreed. The case for VM to be forced to open up its' network is stronger.

[sakiblateef]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

The case for VM to be forced to open up its' network is stronger.

Lets hope they are forced to open up their network, better for the consumer in the long run.

[zantarous]

Seeing as Tuesday has come and gone has anyone heard anything? I know they will not announce till March which seems odd as they have already decided and that they spent years looking to this. Why delay.